cdan wrote:In some cases the networks have deals where they pay the hospital a fee to only show their channels. The networks then add the bed numbers at the hospitals plus a "markup" for visitor stats depending on the hospital size and city, etc. to their audience stats for advertisers.

Other times cable providers and similar offer discounts for installing and providing their service if the hospital limits the channels to a certain range, etc.

I can understand that where a company is trying to secure additional ad income through exclusives, but Fox News is marketing an ideology - one that people hopped up on morphine might even find believable. That's not right.

Advertisers love Fox News viewers. They're already brain washed so whatever you want to pour into the empty space where rational thought used to be you can do it with ease.

Although I must admit that when I was channel hopping last night I noticed that O'Reilly, commander in chief or Loonville, was telling the GOP to stop being stupid. He said the proper way to deal with Obamacare was to face the facts that the argument had been lost, that the law existed as per the majority approval of the American public and only and election win and a full repeal would suffice. Shocking.

cdan wrote:In some cases the networks have deals where they pay the hospital a fee to only show their channels. The networks then add the bed numbers at the hospitals plus a "markup" for visitor stats depending on the hospital size and city, etc. to their audience stats for advertisers.

Other times cable providers and similar offer discounts for installing and providing their service if the hospital limits the channels to a certain range, etc.

I can understand that where a company is trying to secure additional ad income through exclusives, but Fox News is marketing an ideology - one that people hopped up on morphine might even find believable. That's not right.

Advertisers love Fox News viewers. They're already brain washed so whatever you want to pour into the empty space where rational thought used to be you can do it with ease.

Although I must admit that when I was channel hopping last night I noticed that O'Reilly, commander in chief or Loonville, was telling the GOP to stop being stupid. He said the proper way to deal with Obamacare was to face the facts that the argument had been lost, that the law existed as per the majority approval of the American public and only and election win and a full repeal would suffice. Shocking.

In the meantime you can buy this totally authentic collectible 9/11 coin with a popup engraving of the WTC, totally made out of melted gold from those buildings! Be patriotic!

I wake up this morning to news of shot fired in DC. Is it bad of me that my first reaction was "Tea Party nutjob"? On the one hand it could be anyone, but on the other hand, the bleeding-heart liberals are less likely to be armed.

And that's the reason they don't have a chance. It's necessary to change that attitude on an individual level first, until enough people are comfortable voting third party that it starts to become noticable. Each person that just goes along with the two party system for that reason, just reinforces the idea that it's the only way worth going.

the way i see it, the fastest way for us to see change in this nation is to stop voting for the two parties that put us into this mess. just imagine the change we could see if everyone "wasted" their vote.The Republicans were the third party at one point...

Melathys wrote:the way i see it, the fastest way for us to see change in this nation is to stop voting for the two parties that put us into this mess. just imagine the change we could see if everyone "wasted" their vote.The Republicans were the third party at one point...

Yes. And like I said, I'd vote for a third party IF the third party was within striking distance, but because that is not the case, I'd rather vote for the lesser of evils.

Melathys wrote:the way i see it, the fastest way for us to see change in this nation is to stop voting for the two parties that put us into this mess. just imagine the change we could see if everyone "wasted" their vote.The Republicans were the third party at one point...

Yes. And like I said, I'd vote for a third party IF the third party was within striking distance, but because that is not the case, I'd rather vote for the lesser of evils.

Melathys wrote:The point is people complain about politics, and then keep voting for the same people/party over and over again...basically what you're doing.

My mother would vote for the devil himself if he ran as a Republican, on the grounds that Republicans support Christian values, even though they, as a party, are against programs that feed the hungry or clothe the naked and are willing to shut down the government over their opposition to healing the sick.

In any close election, votes by free-thinking people not supporting the primary opposition will be thrown away, because the party with the largest party-line voting bloc will win.

Perhaps in states where there are overwhelming majorities, some of the majority can lend support to third-party candidates, but it would be dangerous to do so in contested areas.

Paxen wrote:You need to overhaul your election system. First-past-the-post systems will never favor a third party.

This

Need to go from 1 person districts to representative numbers (State X has 30 congressmen - votes go 42% D, 40% R, and 18% 3rd party - 12.6 Congressmen for D, 12 for R and 5.4 for 3rd party - the one split 60/40 could go either way dependant on specific structuring.Under 1 person districts, it would be 15/15 or 16/14 or somesuch dependant on how big the majorities wer ein each district.

Melathys wrote:The point is people complain about politics, and then keep voting for the same people/party over and over again...basically what you're doing.

I vote for Dems because I'd rather see them than Reps. It's the most logical choice in contested areas -- otherwise, the votes to the third party could cause the worst candidate be elected.

I guess agree to disagree. For me, it used to be that I vote along Republican lines, but that was when republicans stood for small government and personal liberty. The way it is now, both parties are the greater evil, so I'll do my small part to break the two party system. Unless there's actually a good candidate from either party.

I guess I'm hoping that enough Republicans are disgusted enough with the Republican party to vote for a third party...much like myself. The Libertarian party is more Republican these days than the Republican party. I mean, the past two elections I would rather have had Obama as president than the Republican nominee...and I consider myself Republican, or at least I used to. Well, I do still consider myself a Republican, but as they are supposed to be, not as they've become. Its like when they asked Ron Paul about how he seems to be so out of step with the rest of the Republican party, and he responded "Well, perhaps I'm the only Republican left."

Melathys wrote:The point is people complain about politics, and then keep voting for the same people/party over and over again...basically what you're doing.

I vote for Dems because I'd rather see them than Reps. It's the most logical choice in contested areas -- otherwise, the votes to the third party could cause the worst candidate be elected.

I guess agree to disagree. For me, it used to be that I vote along Republican lines, but that was when republicans stood for small government and personal liberty. The way it is now, both parties are the greater evil, so I'll do my small part to break the two party system. Unless there's actually a good candidate from either party.

I guess I'm hoping that enough Republicans are disgusted enough with the Republican party to vote for a third party...much like myself. The Libertarian party is more Republican these days than the Republican party. I mean, the past two elections I would rather have had Obama as president than the Republican nominee...and I consider myself Republican, or at least I used to. Well, I do still consider myself a Republican, but as they are supposed to be, not as they've become. Its like when they asked Ron Paul about how he seems to be so out of step with the rest of the Republican party, and he responded "Well, perhaps I'm the only Republican left."

my point is that the two big party choices are so bad that Americans should start considering other parties that are actually more in line with their ideals. Just because, say, Republicans used to stand for limited government and personal liberties, doesn't mean they do any more. People have become so blinded by the status quo that they refuse to do any critical thinking. "oh, I watch CNN/Fox, I know what's going on."....

I would rather have had Obama as president than the Republican nominee...

And my point is that is the very reason why I voted for Obama, even though it didn't matter because Texas is still pretty red when it comes to presidential elections -- but in a contested state, going for the third party could have made Obama lose that state, and possibly the election, thus giving the Republican nominee the presidency.

Having the Libertarian party win would be the best scenario, but if it falls through, it could cause the worst scenario come true -- thus I vote to prevent the worst scenario, in my view.

It is argued that's the reason why George HW Bush didn't win, because Ross Perot drew conservative votes away from him in order for Clinton to win the election.

I guess I just tend to vote pragmatically, rather than idealistically.